Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 16:00:05 GMT
Message-ID: <94jfg.15549$A26.362387_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Robert Martin wrote:
> On 2006-05-30 05:54:52 -0500, "David Cressey" <dcressey_at_verizon.net> said:
>
>> "Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_novoa_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1148940908.338233.159400_at_j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >>>> No, a DBMS is a bucket of bits with some low level rules to manage >>>> those bits. An OO application provides the beavior that the customer >>>> wants to see. We can completely eliminate the DBMS and replace it with >>>> another of an entirely different form (non Relational for example) and >>>> still have all the business behavior we need. >>> >>>> The people who sell databases have sold you, and the industry, a >>>> misconception: that the database is the heart of the system. This is >>>> flawed. The heart of the system is the application code. The database >>>> is a detail to be decided at the last possible moment and kept in a >>>> position so flexible that it can be swapped out for another at a whim. >> >> I disagree completely with the above, which seems to have been written by >> Robert Martin.
>
> It was.
>
>> The heart of the system is the data.
>
> *One* heart of the system is the data *model*. The technology that
> stores the data within that model is a detail.
>
>> For 20 years, I believed that the heart of the system was the application >> code. I wrote application code. That's why I believed it. But I've >> seen >> enough to convince me otherwise in the last 17 years. >> >> Not that I didn't say: "the database". What if we change database >> vendors? >> Been there, done that. >> What if we rewrite almost all the application code? Been there, done >> that. >> >> What if we destroy all the data up to this point? Time to update your >> resume, everybody!
>
> Granted, granted. But destroying the data is not the same as isolating
> the data management mechanism from the data model.
More ignorant tripe. Do you even have a clue what a data model is? What sort of data model you are talking about? Without that, what you wrote is not only wrong but essentially meaningless.
> Actually, based on your post, I don't think you disagree completely with
> mine. At most I think you disagree with the emphasis. My "bucket of
> bits" statement is extreme because I am often found in the situation of
> helping teams of developers who start their projects by saying: "OK,
> we've got Oracle. Now what?"
Sadly, I have been paid large sums of money to fix the problems created when teams started with "We've got objects. Woo hoo!" instead. Received on Wed May 31 2006 - 18:00:05 CEST